Celebrate diversity all you want. But is diversity going to celebrate you?
Police have told a French teenager to go into hiding after she received death threats for insulting Islam.
The 16-year-old has been advised to stay away from her lycée (sixth-form college) in southeast France after calls on the internet for her to be killed, raped or attacked.
The girl, named only as Mila, is understood to have been told by officials that she should avoid being seen in public until the controversy fades. She is being given psychological support by the local prosecutor’s office.
Prosecutors said two separate criminal inquiries were under way, the first to track the authors of threats to kill and rape the teenager, the second to determine whether her comments amounted to the offence of hate speech….
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
In saying this, Trump appears to be aware that taking Islamic State jihadis back is a suicidally stupid move, one that all to many European countries are willing to make. As is clear from the context of this exchange, the establishment media is eager for Western countries to play Russian roulette in this way.
“Macron says time for Turkey to clarify ambiguous stance on Islamic State,” by Michel Rose, Reuters, December 3, 2019:
…In an at times awkward news conference with Trump, Macron appeared exasperated when the U.S. president said he would pass the question to Macron on whether France should do more to bring French ISIS fighters home.
Paris has about 400 nationals, including around 60 fighters, held in northern Syria. It has refused to bring adults home saying they must face trial where their crimes were committed.
“Would you like some nice ISIS fighters? You can take everyone you want,” Trump said in a light-hearted tone.
Visibly irritated, Macron responded, saying “let’s be serious” and argued that number of foreign fighters from European countries was small, and that it would be unhelpful to focus on them rather than on the broader problem.
“It is true you have fighters coming from Europe but this is a tiny minority and I think the number one priority, because it’s not finished, is to get rid of ISIS and terrorist groups. This is our number one priority and it’s not yet done,” he said.
Trump suggested Macron had not answered the question.
“This is why he is a great politician because that was one of the greatest non-answers I have ever heard, and that’s OK,” Trump said.
RELATED VIDEO: Katie Hopkins Video: They Plotted to Behead Me
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
“Pope Francis trotted out a scene from the 11th-century French epic poem La Chanson de Roland this week to prove Christians have tried to convert Muslims by the sword, just as Muslims have done to Christians.”
The Pope’s moral equivalence is obscene at best. He also stated: “Beware of the fundamentalist groups: everyone has his own.”
True, but no religion but Islam has a history of aggression and an imperative — supported by religious texts — to conquer the world and subjugate unbelievers as inferiors, while murdering those who leave the faith.
Nowhere in Christian tenets is there a command to conquer by the sword; however, this is prescribed in Islamic texts and law, and has been steadily followed in varying degrees for 1,400 years.
Christians also defended themselves against expansionary Islamic marauders from the 7th century onward, as the latter rampaged through the Middle East and Africa, murdering far more Christians than Christians killed Muslims in all the Crusades combined.
And they’re still doing it. Christians are facing genocide at the hands of Muslims in the Middle East and Africa; most of the world ignores this, including the Pope, who instead insists that “it’s not fair to identify Islam with violence.”
The Pope has been a powerful promoter of Islam, going so far as advance theological reforms in Catholic schools to promote a “common mission of peace” with Islam. He largely ignores the gross human rights violations against Christians, women, minorities and apostates that are justified by normative Islam. He has not called on the leaders of Islamic states and mainstream Islamic leaders to condemn the Islamic texts that sanction such abuses. Instead, he has stated that “Christianity and Islam have more in common than people think…and the two religions defend common values that are necessary for the future of civilization.”
“Hours before Pope Francis called for the abolition of capital punishment” last Friday, he warmly embraced the Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb — the revered Islamic scholar and cleric who has endorsed jihad suicide attacks against Jews and wants converts to Christianity to be killed. Pope Francis and el-Tayeb early this year published “A Document On Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.”
Then last month, Pope Francis installed new cardinals who “share his vision for social justice, rights of immigrants and dialogue with Islam.”
Regarding La Chanson de Roland, “the French themselves to cry foul, reproaching the pontiff both for besmirching one of their most beloved pieces of epic literature and for using a fictional narrative to illustrate a point about how Christians supposedly behave.”
“Pope Cites Fictional French Epic to Prove Christians Are Violent,” by Thomas D. Williams, Breitbart, November 21, 2019:
ROME — Pope Francis trotted out a scene from the 11th-century French epic poem La Chanson de Roland this week to prove Christians have tried to convert Muslims by the sword, just as Muslims have done to Christians.
“A scene from The Song of Roland comes to me as a symbol, when the Christians defeat the Muslims and line them up in front of the baptismal font, with one holding a sword,” the pope told an Argentinian interreligious dialogue group Monday.
“And the Muslims had to choose between baptism or the sword. That is what we Christians did,” he declared.
It did not take long for the French themselves to cry foul, reproaching the pontiff both for besmirching one of their most beloved pieces of epic literature and for using a fictional narrative to illustrate a point about how Christians supposedly behave.
“La Chanson de Roland is obviously not a historical chronicle of events, but an epic poem, a chanson de geste, the oldest and most complete manuscript, written in Anglo-Norman, and dates back to the early twelfth century, four centuries after the facts it is supposed to recount,” wrote Vini Ganimara Thursday for the French Catholic news site Riposte Catholique.
The Song of Roland was indeed inspired in part by a historical event, namely Charlemagne’s expedition to Spain in 778, Ganimara observes, but this expedition to Spain was actually undertaken at the request of several Muslim governors of Spain, in rebellion against the Emir of Cordova.
Moreover, the invasion was unsuccessful, and is recounted as such in the poem.
“The memory of Pope Francis evoking the victory of the Franks over Muslims is therefore confused, because the expedition was not a victory,” Ganimara observes.
“The fictitious case of the forced baptism of Muslims supposedly defeated after the capture of Zaragoza — which did not take place — is not historical, but is a pure imagination of the poet,” he adds, noting that contrary to the pope’s account, there is not even a Christian holding a sword in the original work.
“How then can he affirm that ‘this is what we Christians did’?” he concludes.
In his address, Pope Francis was attempting to show that it is not just Islamic extremists who practice violent fanaticism, but that Christians are equally guilty of religiously motivated violence….
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.
Editor’s note: Hugh Fitzgerald first published this essay here at Jihad Watch in 2004. Now, in light of the landslide election of Emmanuel Macron as President, it is more germane than ever, and hence eminently worthy of republishing. The names of the politicians have changed; the overall situation is the same.
Imagine that you are a cosseted member of the French elite. One child is doing the khâgne, aiming for rue d’Ulm. Another is now a politechnicien. You are very comfortable, working for the state. You and your spouse are journalists, or writers, or one of that vast tribe of people conducting “recherches,” and life is comfortable, good, the way it should be. Yes, you do notice more and more Muslims about you as you walk, no longer in the banlieues, but in the center of Paris, or Toulouse, or Lyon. And you remember how uneasy you felt, four years ago, when you happened to be walking on the Canebière in Marseille. You decided, then and there, that you would not return.
And you have friends who live in the south. And they tell you that the beurs — some call them maghrébins — make life hell for everyone. They attack French children on the way to school. They vandalize cars. They threaten, and do more than threaten, anyone who is still foolish enough to walk out wearing a kippah or a cross. Whole areas of cities in the south, as in the north, and east, and west, have become off-limits to non-Muslims. In the schools, the teachers have lost authority. They cannot even cover the subjects of World War II, the Resistance, and the murders of the Jews as the state prescribes; they fear, with reason, the violent reaction of the Muslim students.
And as the schools become more and more dangerous for non-Muslim students and teachers, with more time and resources devoted to discipline rather than to learning, French parents and would-be parents are now silently factoring into their childbearing plans the present value of the future cost of what, they see, will now have to be added: private school tuition. And that means, of course, that those French people will plan on smaller families. And they will also be factoring in the growing cost, paid by them, those French taxpayers, for the whole expanding edifice of security, the guards in the schools, the guards at the train stations and métro stations and airports and at government buildings everywhere, the costs of keeping the gravestones from being vandalized, the costs of protecting the synagogues and the churches, the costs for all those tapped phones and agents in mosques, and subsidies to lawyers and judges to hear charges and try cases against Muslims, and the costs of monitoring da’wa in the prisons (more than 50% Muslim).
But the Muslims are indifferent to expenses incurred by the French state. France is part of the world; the world belongs to Allah, and to his Believers. That doctrine has remained immutable for 1400 years. Imam Bouziane, the one they keep trying to deport, had 16 children by two wives, all living on the French state: a representative Muslim man. Over time, the difference between average family size of Muslims and non-Muslims steadily increases. And, over time, the education system continues to disintegrate. Right now, perhaps, you cannot see it. Your children go to the best schools, followed by the best lycées. You vacation in Normandy, or Brittany, or the Île de Ré. And you do not take the metro often enough, or walk in the right districts, or work in the right factories or offices, to understand what tens of millions of your fellow Frenchmen now have to endure. You, for the moment, are still immune, still willfully unaware. You have spent the last few decades learning about the Muslim world from Eric Rouleau, and his epigones (after they silenced Peroncel-Hugoz, the one journalist who reported the truth) in Le Monde. You are deeply-versed in the constantly reported-upon, endlessly dilated-upon, perfidy of the mighty empire of Israel. You know what we have all had dinned into us: that the Arab Muslims are reasonable people, with clearly-justified grievances, grievances so reasonable and so limited in scope, that justice demands they be satisfied. Everyone agrees on the “solution.” It is called a “two-state solution” and of course it is a “solution” for otherwise, of course, it would not have been called a “solution.”
And everything looks the way it always has looked: the linden trees, the river, the bridges, the réverbères, the étalage in the neighborhood boulangerie. Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance. At the end of the school day, chic mothers still congregate in little towns, or small cities, outside the school — this or that Ecole Jules Ferry — waiting to pick up their children. Here come the littlest ones, from Maternelle, running up now — just look at how small they are. And here are the CE1 group, with those huge cartables on their tiny backs. Run, run, run, to Mommy. Oop-la. And then the years of study, study, study marked by ever-larger cahiers — “cahier” and “cartable” are the words that identify French DNA better than Piaf or gauloises, isn’t that true? And now we will read the books, and study the subjects, set down so completely and precisely by the Ministry of Education. And now we are up to the final year, preparing for the Bac, with copies of blue-backed BALISES, guides to Les Châtiments and La Peau de Chagrin. And just look at the results listed in the newspaper: Claire-Alix has a mention très bien. Fantastic. Everything is fine, everything will always stay the same, whole countries cannot change. It’s not possible.
But it is changing, coming apart, quietly, slowly – let’s not look too closely, we mustn’t pay too much attention — the streets, the schools, the hospitals, the ability to speak the truth about things, about life as it is lived, la vita vissuta, as they like to say in a neighboring country. Dominique de Villepin always knew there was nothing to worry about; he was born, after all, in Salé, next to Rabat, even spent a few years of his infancy there; of course he knows his Arabs, his Muslims. And surely Eric Rouleau, who for decades in Le Monde was the resident expert on the Middle East (he was so knowledgeable that he never had to so much as mention the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunna), surely he knew everything, didn’t he? And those French translations of Edward Said that denounced with such passion the Islamophobia, and those vicious cliches with which the blind and rotting West has always caricatured the Arab Muslim world. Oh, we have been so terrible to the Arabs, we colonialists, we French, we Westerners. And then there is the never-ending outrage of Israel, that running colonial sore. Of course, they have every right, those Muslims, to come here to France. We went to their countries once, now they come to ours. And they have every right to hate us, don’t they?
So now we have decided not to understand, and to cut all ties of sympathy to, Israel — and how did we ever have any sympathy for it in the first place, the way some of our parents did back in 1948 or 1956 or 1967? How could they not have seen what the “Palestinian people” had to endure? Hanan, Yasser, Said, Saeb, Aziz, Walid, Rashid, Mohammed — you have won our hearts and minds. Take us, do with us what you will.
No one will mention what is happening or what kinds of things we must begin to think about doing to save ourselves. No one of any decency. And whatever Le Pen and Megret say, we must say the opposite (except, of course, when they show their hostility to “the Jews”). Do not say those things, do not think them. Free thought is all very well in theory, but really — consider the consequences. Don’t dare to think outside that box brimming with idées reçues. Défense de penser au dehors du box.
No, everything will be all right as you stroll down the Avenue Paule-Anne. Those Muslims will never be a match for us. Why, just look at those legionnaires marching à pas lent down the Champs-Elysées, think of that string of desert victories. Inside our heads, it is 1930 and over here is the Exposition coloniale. You remember, tu t’en souviens, that painting by le Douanier Rousseau, don’t you, with the burnoosed Arab standing next to the black Senegalese? I have it right, don’t I? France will always be France. Nothing will ever change.
At a certain point, and despite everything that causes you not to see what is staring you in the face, you realize that something has gone irreparably wrong with your country, and you, and your children, are in danger of losing that country, down to every village and house, qui m’est une province et beaucoup davantage. And you do not know what to do, or how to explain this feeling to others, or in whom to confide your secret fears, or what can be done. It is so confusing, and so upsetting. You cannot vote for Le Pen. You cannot endorse “cowboy” Bush or those ridiculous Americans. You have no place to go.
And then you learn what Jacques Chirac — who now has a Muslim grandchild himself — and Dominique de Villepin, do not wish you to learn. For if you did, you might be very angry. You discover that 1 out of every 3 babies born in France today is a Muslim baby. And that means, in 20 years, one of every three 20-year-olds in France will be a Muslim twenty-year-old. And that means, twenty years after that, at present rates of reproduction, France will have a majority Muslim population. Where shall we hide the statues from Marly-le-roi? And the Venus de Milo? And what about all those paintings of animated life — all those portraits in the Louvre, and the Grand Palais, and the Musée Guimet down there in linden-lined Aix, and everywhere else in art-filled artful France, mère des arts, des armes, et des loix — that are absolutely forbidden according to the immutable strictures of the Qur’an. Should they be sent for safekeeping to those Americans across the seas? By then most of the Jews in France will have left, gone across the oceans for their own safekeeping, to Israel or to English-speaking Canada (they were worried about the Muslim population of Quebec, you see, which had been allowed to grow under the Province of Quebec’s policy of encouraging francophone immigrants, preferring North Africans to potential immigrants from Italy, Greece, Spain), and above all, to America. What luck those Americans have had. No more bequests to France by the likes of the Rothschilds, or Nissim Camondo. No more Donations from another Pierre Lévy. Enjoy the Kufic calligraphy; some find it endlessly fascinating.
For the moment, you allow yourself to believe that something will come up. Most likely, all those Muslims will simply convert. I mean, they do that, don’t they, quite easily I’m told. Of course, why didn’t I think of it, that is exactly what will happen. The situation is always saved in time. Just like during the war. Nothing to worry about. Nothing.
Invasion of Europe news…
The first thing I thought of when I heard the news that Marine Le Pen had lost to the globalist Emmanuel Macron was Mark Steyn’s predictions in America Alone. If you have never read it, you must. And while you are at it don’t skip The Camp of Saints ((over 40 years old!) or, the very dark (nothing “funny” about it) novel Submission.
Ha! It seems that one can’t thoroughly discuss the issue of Islamic demographic dominance outside of a novel (well, except for ‘America Alone’).
Here are a few snips from Steyn on the results of the French election on Saturday:
The French have voted to postpone their rendezvous with destiny. But kicking the croissant down the road means another half-decade of demographic transformation that lengthens the odds against ever winning the numbers to halt it.
…with the arrival of President Macron in the charmed circle, the leaders of Europe’s biggest economies and of all the European members of the G7 are childless: Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Theresa May, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, and now France’s Macron.
This would have been not just statistically improbable but all but impossible for most of human history. Whatever Euro-politics is about, it’s not, as Bill Clinton was wont to say, the future of all our children. Indeed, of the six founding members of the European Union – France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg – five are led by childless prime ministers: joining Merkel, Gentiloni and Macron at the no-need-for-daycare Euro-summit are the Dutch PM Mark Rutte and the Luxemburger Xavier Bettel. Mark Rutte is single and childless. Xavier Bettel of Lux is married, but gay and, hélas, for the moment without progeny.
Indeed, it would have been a clean sweep of all six of the EU’s founding members – a non-procreative sextet – had not Charles Michel succeeded another gay PM, Belgium’s Elio di Rupo. While M di Rupo also remains unblessed by any visit from the Euro-Stork, M Michel has managed to sire a brace of moppets. So that’s two kids between six prime ministers.
Read the whole thing here. Then tell all of your young conservative friends to HAVE BABIES!
Our complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ is here.
If you need convincing, in addition to ‘America Alone,’ put these books on your reading list (including my little booklet!):
RELATED VIDEO: #MacronLeaks: Secret Islamization Plans.
Paris 7 May 2017
Le Pen 34.5%
2:30 PM: In less than six hours the name of the next French president will be announced. I don’t need to go far out on a limb to predict it will be Emmanuel Macron. Though Marine Le Pen briefly enjoyed an outside chance to overcome the odds and squeak into victory, she destroyed it on the night of the debate. By the way, the official audience figure is 16.5 million, well under the predicted 20 to 22 million that I cited in Part 6. Why do I argue that she has no one to blame but herself for her display of incompetence, confusion, bad faith and bad taste? Because she herself proudly boasted that she had deliberately chosen a totally appropriate and, what’s more, a winning strategy. Her running mate Nicolas Dupont-Aignan publicly and proudly agreed, and many of her supporting commentators concurred. She was expressing the anger of the people. Some are even suggesting at this late hour that her audacious performance will prove to be stronger than all the forces allied against her. They are confident that she will win on an upset!
I can’t understand this uncritical support for someone that has never displayed the qualities of a viable leader of the résistance against jihad. Is vociferous denunciation of Islamization all it takes to fit the bill? If that were so, there would be no difference between writing a blog and leading a nation or even leading the opposition to a jihad-friendly government. In a democracy, you have to convince a majority of voters, you have to get elected. And then you need all the qualities of a brilliant, exceptional, strong, upstanding, competent political leader capable of prevailing over tremendous domestic and international odds.
This explains my dismay at the constant flow of messages from friends and allies in the United States telling me that Marine Le Pen will win, should win, or would be the best choice. The odds when the official campaign ended at midnightFriday were 62% to 38%. Where in the world have we ever seen an upset of that dimension? I will not repeat here all the verified evidence I have reported over the past five years to show the ambiguity of Marine Le Pen’s position on Islam. Can you set aside the coziness with Assad and Hezbollah, the antizionism of her pre-chosen prime minister, her tactical pressure on French Jews to accept sacrifices so the limits she will impose on Muslims won’t seem discriminatory? Do you understand what it means to dual French-Israeli citizens to be told they will have to choose one or the other? Is Frexit the French version of Brexit? Aside from the fact that Marine has surreptitiously dropped it from her platform, there is no comparison. Great Britain was never in the Eurozone, has a vibrant economy and, by its historical and geographical separation from the Continent and Churchillian tradition, has the guts to negotiate a tough divorce from a stubborn EU.
Seen from the USA, the free enterprise capital of the world, Marine Le Pen’s economic platform that fits hand in glove with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Bolivarian dreams-anticapitalist, antiglobalist, anti-American, and naïvely protectionist-might seem too vague to matter. Here on the ground, it would be disastrous. And the double-decker monetary system? The way she described it during the debate, multinationals would use the euro for their unspeakable foreign intercourse and the good French salt of the earth folks will have their francs as delicious as the baguettes they’ll purchase with them. A candidate that can float such preposterous notions is trustworthy on all things Islamic? It’s not logical.
Besides, she’s going to lose. And we’ll be stuck with Emmanuel Macron. In a democracy, you have to win elections if you want to implement your policies. However brilliant, if you can’t convince voters, you’re back in the shadows with the unsung poets.
May surprise, Wikileaks ex machina, the eleventh hour dump, the world-shaking upset. Gigantic hack of Emmanuel Macron’s computers. And wild hopes are blooming. Of course no one’s interested in messages about the candidate’s appointment with his barber, who’s going to pick up his suit at the cleaner’s, how many wreaths to order for the memorial ops. All eyes are focused on the explosive offshore account documents. Macron stashed the millions he made as investment banker chez Rothschild (the name that always gets a wink) in a phony offshore company on one of those islands. Wikileaks leaked the supposedly Russian-hacked documents. French media will be released from the election weekend gag order at 8 o’clock tonight. Instead of popping champagne corks with Emmanuel and Brigitte, they’ll be picking through the dump looking for gold. Or maybe the miracle is already happening and thanks to Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange, Marine will be présidente!
And Macron on his way to jail?
The other dump concerns the self-righteous François Bayrou. It seems his party used the same racket as the Front National to siphon money from the EU Parliament in the form of salaries for his fake parliamentary assistants that were in fact working for the party. It will be interesting to discover in the near future whether this is a French specialty or a European practice.
I don’t trust Vladimir Putin and Julian Assange over millions of misguided French voters. I don’t want dirty politics to be replaced by ugly snooping. If crooked politicians can’t have some privacy, then no one will. Deep inside these garbage dumps a new kind of totalitarianism is festering.
Time to cut our losses and start thinking about the next steps, the new strategies. If François Fillon was the right man at the right time, he wasn’t able to overcome the twisted schemes devised to disable him. His victorious rival is going to face another kind of vicious schemes and it will probably begin this evening. Occupying la République, storming la Bastille, the flame throwers and bank smashers will be out in force to denounce their defeat while the filthy rich banker celebrates his victory in the courtyard of the Louvre and the heavens will grumble with harsh winds and chilly rains that douse our hopes for springtime in Paris.
The ever-ready Muslim Brotherhood will be hatching new plans for a new phase of an eternal combat.
It’s not just France, my friends. A copy of the international NY Times fell into my hands yesterday. It’s a cesspool. A cesspool disguised as a sparkling blue Olympic swimming pool. One op-ed gives an exquisitely original plan for peace…Israel-Palestine peace of course. Start by being nice to each other. This is followed by endless recommendations to Israelis to stop expanding “colonies,” give more of this, do less of that and, finally, accept the 2002 Saudi initiative as the basis for the 2-state solution. You know, 67 borders, divided Jerusalem, question mark on the refugees, the whole rehash. Another op-ed has the solution for the lone wolves problem. It’s so simple why didn’t anyone think about it before? Didn’t you notice that 90% of them are mentally disturbed? So stop looking for an Islamic problem. Just alert your society to this mental health crisis, ask people to notify authorities when they notice someone getting psychologically wobbly and then, instead of combing through his Facebook pages on the lookout for decapitation videos and black flags of jihad, get him some topnotch psychological treatment. Believe you me.
An in-depth article on the eve of the final round of the French election gathers disgruntled testimony in the Parisian banlieue of Stains that voted 40% in the first round for the Chavez admirer Mélenchon. The NY Times reporter labels residents by their Tunisian (Moroccan, Senegalese, etc.) “heritage.” They’re disappointed in François Hollande, fiercely opposed to Marine Le Pen, unhappy with their lot in France, feel poor and abandoned, don’t believe in politics, some will vote Macron, many won’t vote, they are all innocent victims of a damned racist country that offers them no opportunity. The Muslim mayor of Stains, Azzedine Taibi, says they need effective inspirational government programs. Not someone like Hollande, says Selamine Abderrahmane, an assistant mayor in neighboring Bobigny; he didn’t keep any of his promises. Abderrahmane will vote Macron to be sure Le Pen won’t win. His friend, a white municipal counselor, can’t bring himself to cast a ballot for the “globalizer” who promotes policies that pit workers that are French against foreigners who will work for less. The French workers in question being the residents of Stains, of all those varied North African and sub-Saharan “heritage.”
4:40 PM: less than four hours to go. Before I sign off, I would like to add this disclosure: I can’t vote. I am not French. Though I’ve lived here for close to 45 years, I have always kept my American nationality. Why? Out of gratitude to the country that took my family in as immigrants from a Europe that 30 years later would be exterminating those they left behind. Grateful immigrants, I might add. And the other reason is a sort of blithe spirit that keeps me lightly poised and not dug in: my nationality there, my physical presence here, my imagination everywhere.
Back to you at 8:01 PM.
ZeroHedge, Reddit, iBankCoin.com, Free Republic and others are all reporting on a scandal that hits the Emmanuel Macron campaign just three days before the French presidential election.
Disobedient Media in a column titled Documents Indicate That Emmanuel Macron May Be Engaging In Tax Evasion reports:
Documents leaked online today appear to show that French Presidential Candidate Emmanuel Macron entered into an operating agreement for a Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the Caribbean island of Nevis, and that the company may have had a business relationship with a bank which has been previously involved in tax evasion cases in the Cayman Islands. Macron claimed he was not concealing assets or holding secret offshore accounts less than a month ago.
The first document is an operating agreement drawn up on May 4th, 2012 to form “La Providence LLC” under the 1995 Nevis Limited Liability Company Ordinance bearing Mr. Macron’s name and signature. La Providence is the name of Macron’s former high school in Amiens, where he first met his wife. The decision to form a company in Nevis is suspect, as the Nevis Confidential Relationship Act prohibits the disclosure of information and guarantees the secrecy and privacy of offshore LLCs in Nevis. Information about company owners is not published nor is it available to the public. Nevis has been described by Bloomberg as one of a number of popular tax havens in the Caribbean.
A second document is a letter sent to La Providence Ltd. from the First Caribbean International Bank, indicating a business relationship with Macron’s LLC. Forbes reported that First Caribbean International Bank was implicated as a facilitator of tax evasion in 2013. It has also been named by Reuters as a player in fraud relating to the 2015 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) scandals, after it emerged that a representative for First Caribbean had personally collected a check from a FIFA official and then returned to deposit it in an account in the Bahamas.
In April, Macron denied that he was hiding offshore accounts or inheritances from French authorities, even as his opponent Francois Fillion became mired in similar allegations. If confirmed as authentic, the documents would prove these claims to be untrue and provide important clues as to where the hidden funds might be located.
With the race for president tightening all bets are off given this revelation, if it is true.
As you know, the first round of the French presidential election took place this past Sunday, April 23rd.
Emmanuel Macron (who is the direct heir of the incompetent and traitor and anti-French socialist president François Hollande) and the nationalist Marine Le Pen are qualified for the second round. But Marine Le Pen has almost no possibility to win and become the next French president.
Macron will most probably be the next French president. This Macron is a sort of white Obama, but more extremist, more anti-Western, more anti-Christian, more anti-Jewish, than Obama was!
Emmanuel Macron was called by and talked with Barack Obama after the election.
Macron is the horrible crossbreeding of Obama and Soros and Justin Trudeau.
Macron is an ultra-leftist who viscerally hates France and the French people. He has said many times that “there is no French culture”, that “he has never seen French art” (meaning that French art doesn’t exist), therefore he denies the very existence of the French people (because all people has his own culture)! And he has accused France of crimes against humanity in Algeria, when in fact it’s the Algerians who are guilty of crimes against humanity, because they reduced into slavery more than 1 million of our ancestors and slaughtered more than 1 million French people from 8th to 19th century!
Macron has said time and again that he supports mass immigration into France from Africa ! That millions of immigrants will continue to invade our European countries and that it’s a good thing! And he has praised the traitor to the German people Angela Merkel for letting 1 million illegal Muslim immigrants invade Germany in 2015, resulting in thousands of German women raped and numerous terrorist attacks!
Macron has said that he wants to create an “French-Algerian Youth Office” to increase the entry of Algerians into France, these Algerians being predominantly racist scums who insult and rape our wives and daughters, who attack and kill our parents and children, who rob, maim, kill, commit terror attack after terror attack. As a reminder, Muslims represent more than 70% of the prisoners in our prisons.
Macron has many Muslim extremists around him, one of them (Mohamed Saou) who refused to condemn the assassination of Charlie Hebdo’s journalists in January 2015!
Macron is very close to Marwan Muhammad, a fanatical Muslim extremist who was fired by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) for spreading anti-Western Muslim propaganda, who wants to suppress any critic of Islam, and who supports islamization, burkas, burkinis and shariah (Islamic) law in France!
Macron has said he plans to introduce “positive” discrimination, which is, as it has been proven in America, anti-White racism. And he plans to use this “positive” discrimination to hire Muslims in place of French people.
Macron will dramatically increase the Islamization of France, and will do everything he can to force us to submit to Islam, this ideology worse than nazism ! That’s why all the Muslim organizations in France have called today Muslims to “vote massively” for Macron.
Paris and France will become even more dangerous places than they are already. Jews and Christians and non-Muslims will be attacked more and more often, and forced to flee France!
This is a catastrophe!
The first round victory of Macron was made possible by a horrendous “coup d’Etat”, orchestrated by François Hollande and the socialist government, who fabricated fake accusations against François Fillon, the leader of the French right, and ordered leftist judges to prosecute Fillon in violation of the French laws and the French Constitution, and by leftist journalists (more than 90% of French journalists are ultra-leftists) who have spread lies and disinformation against Fillon day after day during months.
America shall not follow Europe’s path!
RELATED VIDEO: Marine Le Pen delivered a rousing speech to her enthusiastic supporters last night, declaring that it is time to “free the French people” from the destructive policies of open borders, open immigration and crushing EU regulations.
10:44 AM: I feel like my country, the country I’ve lived in for over 44 years, is a patient in intensive care. Tubes and catheters, control panels, IT graphs, pulsing images, flashing lights. We’re waiting with sinking hearts for the specialist to come in and interpret the lab results. Something ineluctable is about to be revealed. But what?
I’m going to the outdoor market. When I get back, maybe I’ll run the vacuum cleaner. To keep my mind fresh. Plans for my visit to Israel in May are shaping up. Then 2 weeks in June in the US. A week in the South of France after that. Life goes on. I’ll walk around and take a look at the polling places. All the candidate posters have been defaced by anarchists and other heavy metal destroy protestors.
3 PM: The hawk is out, a merciless cold wind is slamming our hopes for springtime. The sun is hot and bright. It’s not enough. Anarchists and other looking-for-a-fight protesters at yesterday’s Social 1st Round left their filthy messages all up and down boulevard Beaumarchais. Last night they threw bottles and other hard edged objects at the police. Their graffiti looks like blood, talk about broad brush, they obscure whatever they touch. WAR ON THE RICH here POLICE ASSASSINS there. Can’t someone get them out of our face, out of our hair, out of the national conversation? Their causes are rotten. They grab at anything as an excuse for slopping signs and breaking windows, attacking the police and whatever else they get their hands on.
I’m on edge. Up to now, everything was possible, you grasped it with your rational mind. Now it is happening. People are voting. The verdict will soon fall.
I’m sharply impatient and here they come again with Marine Le Pen. A friend tells me about an article in the Jerusalem Post, CNN is in her stomping grounds at Bénin-Haumont and President Trump thinks she’s the best on frontiers and all that sovereignty, and the only one that’s dealing with that pesky problem. C’mon guys, either find out what’s really happening here or comment on another poker game. You want Marine le Pen for president? Help yourself. But leave us out of it
Oh they’re so sure she’ll get to the 2nd round. I just hope they’re wrong. I’m so tired of her misrepresentation.
I have to leave for the concert.
8:17 PM: The concert lasted longer than I expected. My friend Isaac Bensimhon brought to life Jean Ferhat and it brought tears to my eyes, the beauty of song, the commitment to social justice, the innocence (he was a Communist fellow traveler) and the reality of the Soviet Union. Tears for the idealism of our youth, with nothing but hollow bushel barrels to harvest their hopes.
Authorities fear an outbreak of violence after the election results are announced.
A helicopter turns in the cold skies.
I meant to write hour by hour but I kept bumping into friends and neighbors, heard fantastic theories of what was about to happen.
I sensed it, didn’t I? The smug pollsters. Oh my friend, our pollsters are not like your pollsters. Ours are French sharpshooters. Haven’t they been telling us for weeks and months that it would be Le Pen and Macron? Didn’t they make fun of us for seeking other sources that would comfort are vain hopes.
OK, it’s Macron and le Pen. A few minutes ago Fillon squeezed a few centimeter ahead of Mélenchon. Merci, c’est gentil.
Le Pen and Macron. Are you happy, foreign media and friends from everywhere that have been promising Marine would make it to the 2nd round? And win. Forgive me, I had a higher evaluation of French citizens.
Excuse me, for the moment I’ve lost interest in this story.
Now I have to go and endure their victory speeches.
Merci, François Hollande, you realized the dream of the Left: run against the Front National instead of the parliamentary Right. And win.
What a loss!
This attack should lead European authorities to realize that they’re in a war, and that it’s getting worse, and that they’re not winning, and that they need to undertake a drastic reassessment of their approach to this whole problem. But it probably won’t.
“Paris attack: Isis claims responsibility for shooting that left one police officer dead,” by Jon Sharman, Lucy Pasha-Robinson, and Katie Forster, Independent, April 20, 2017:
Extremist group releases statement saying attack was carried out by Belgian Isis fighter
A police officer has died and two are seriously wounded after a shooting near the Champs-Elysees boulevard in Paris.
Isis have claimed responsibility for the attack, in which the officer was said to have been killed while in a car stopped at a red light.
A report citing a police source said the person who fired on officers had been killed in turn. Officials said the suspect had previously been flagged as an extremist.
The Paris prosecutor’s office said it had identified the attacker and was looking into whether he acted alone. Raids are ongoing in the city, it was reported.
A police source said the shooting was very probably a “terrorist act”, according to Reuters, while other reports suggested robbery may have been the motive.
The French interior ministry said it was too early to judge the reason behind the attack, but a counter-terrorism inquiry has been opened.
‘It looks like another terrorist attack,’ says Trump of Paris shooting….
UPDATE: Police are searching for a suspect Youssouf El Osri, who arrived from Belgium on the Thalys train. #Paris #ChampsElysees
EDITORS NOTE: The Associated Press reports that French police have surrounded and searched the family home of Karim Cheurfi (aka Abu Yusuf al-Baljik), a 39-year-old with a police record, in relation to today’s attack. Cheurfi’s home is located in the town of Chelles.
Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.
Besides, this cliffhanging French campaign is a fascinating mixture of Shakespear, Greek tragedy, soap opera, and courtly intrigues.
First, a brief summary of the overall situation:
The incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, didn’t dare run for reelection. His 5 year-term has been a disaster, the Socialist party is in a shambles, the winner of the (Belle Alliance Populaire) primary, Benoît Hamon, is a Kinder Surprise with goodies for all the small people paid for by the Big Bad Rich. He has no chance of getting to the 2nd round. ID: Socialist
The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche
François Fillon, who served for five years as Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister, came out of the Primaries (Right and Center-Right) with a strong mandate, upsetting the media’s favorite Alain Juppé, and polling above Macron and Le Pen. Then, out of the blue, Fillon was hit with a sensational smear campaign and a judicial ton of bricks that would have crushed a weaker constitution. The character assassination putsch against Fillon is the centerpiece of an extraordinarily dramatic campaign. It will be treated briefly below and more amply in Part 2 of this ongoing series. Fillon’s platform is built on a Thatcherite revolution aimed at releasing France from decades of stagnation and double digit unemployment, and a resolute combat against Islamic Totalitarianism at home and abroad. ID: Les Républicains.
And then there is Marine Le Pen. ID: Front National
The top issue on the list of voter preoccupations in February, whether expressed directly or indirectly, was Islam. They wanted to know where candidates stood on the question. Would it be sweet submission or tough resistance? Instead of the issue-based campaign they clearly wanted, voters have been dragged into the quicksand of moralizing purification-aimed at eliminating François Fillon-and thrown a lifesaver attached to the gossamer rope of the Little Prince Emmanuel Macron.
The one thing we cannot know before the 7th of May is the name of the winner. We don’t even know which of the current frontrunners-Le Pen, Macron, Fillon- will make it to the second round. Despite constant reminders of recent prediction flops, commentators are hooked on the fortune-teller syndrome. They watch Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron peddle uphill and careen around hairpin curves as if it were the Tour de France. Last week the media thought they had pushed François Fillon over a cliff and into the abyss, but he held firm. He’s only a few points behind the other two…in the polls, that is. Big Data Analysis gives a different picture, substantially more favorable to Fillon. But that’s not the media’s storyline…
So what about Marine Le Pen? Isn’t she the fourth act of the Trump/Brexit/Wilders divine surprises?
Marine Le Pen’s reputation as The Anti-Islamization Candidate goes back to the early 2000s, when she forcefully expressed the exasperation of the lower classes that were bearing the brunt of Islamic encroachment on French society. Immediately branded as xenophobe, Islamophobe, and racist she turned the disapproval into an advantage, gathered steam, and racked up a series of impressive electoral results. The Front National went from pariah to legitimate party. And Le Pen was handed ownership of anything that could be deemed hostile to Islam. Whenever a politician takes a stand on issues of immigration, Islam, law and order, or homegrown jihadis, he is accused of leaning to the far right, picking issues off the National Front’s plate, disgracing himself…
Foreign media have generally relayed this caricature, fueling widespread ignorance of other aspects of Marie Le Pen’s program and her embryonic party’s structural weaknesses.
Desperate to burnish her foreign policy credentials, Le Pen found no better destination than Lebanon. She opted out of an audience with the Mufti, by refusing to wear a veil. This put her head and shoulders above the Swedish ladies wrapped in hijab that had paraded in front of Iranian president Rohani as if they were merchandise at a slave market. She did not, however, veil her defense of Bashir al Assad, “the only solution for Syria,” or dissimulate her good relations with Michel Aoun, the Christian outsider that became an insider by making an alliance with Hezbullah. Madame Le Pen graciously suggested she might exempt French-Lebanese from her promised ban on extra-European dual nationality. How about French-Israelis? Hardly! Marine Le Pen wants French Jews to sacrifice the kippa in support of an across the board prohibition of religious garb in public. Her envoy, Nicholas Bay, was snubbed during a recent foray into Israel. The presidential candidate herself did not get any further than the Trump Tower coffee shop on a “recreational” weekend in New York.
The Assad connection is longstanding. Marine Le Pen’s friend and associate Frédéric Chatillon, handles PR for both the National Front and Assad. Her father Jean-Marie badmouthed Muslims domestically while entertaining a close friendship with Saddam Hussein. I reported extensively in 2014 on the dubious alliances of the National Front.
The European Union accuses National Front eurodeputies of fraudulent use of EU parliamentary assistant salaries for a total of close to a million euros. Frédéric Chatillon is under investigation for tricky: campaign financing, Marine Le Pen is accused of faulty financial declarations, her cabinet chief is also under investigation and that’s just the tip of an iceberg that has virtually no effect on her faithful supporters. Nevertheless, the sudden flurry of activity on cases that have dragged on for years is questionable. As is the absence of coverage of the party’s unsavory dealings with neo-Nazis and Islamic Jew haters.
Under Marine Le Pen’s leadership, emphasis has been subtly shifting the from Islam to the economy, with a French brand of national socialism: restored sovereignty, protected borders, increased welfare benefits and jobs for the French-French, zero immigration, law & order at home, no foreign entanglements abroad. Her rhetoric is anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-globalization and, of course anti-EU. She promises a referendum to get France out of the EU and the Eurozone; if voters choose to remain, she will resign.
Sloppy comparisons with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. ignore the fact that Trump was able to hitch the Republican Party to his runaway wagon; Marine Le Pen rules over a heteroclite skeleton party that can’t be fleshed out by alliances-all the other parties are devils in FN theology. If she does make it to the second round, she has virtually no chance of winning and no hopes of forming an operational government. The idea that hordes of politicians from the Parliamentary right would pour into her administration is far-fetched.
Emmanuel Macron is a former banker (Banque Rothschild) who served as François Hollande’s Minister of the Economy while freelancing as the founder of En Marche [On the go], a movement that wears his initials like a signet ring. Never before elected to public office, Macron teased his movement into a presidential election machine. He is now jockeying with François Fillon for 2nd position… the polls again. In a cheap version of Richard the Something, Macron made an end run around Manuel Valls, who remained the faithful Prime Minister while Hollande delayed announcing he wouldn’t run for reelection. Subsequently defeated in the primaries, Valls stands back while Socialists big and small go over to Macron. I expect François Hollande will join them at the opportune moment.
Macron is the feel good candidate. Just enough labor reform to look modern, a heavy dose of welfare to reassure the weak and make the strong feel generous. He talks high tech, floats a few inches above the ground, throws out ideas like flowers to lovely maidens, does Black is Beautiful photo-ops and makes affirmative action commitments in the banlieue, visits a police station to show he knows people want security, and declares, in Algeria, that the French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” That was followed by a rally in a Front National stronghold with a large population of “pieds noirs,” former French residents of Algeria, where he unashamedly declared “Because I want to be president, I hear you, I love you.” (borrowed from Général de Gaulle). Macron ruffled feathers with a hymn to multiculturalism: “There is no French culture, there is a culture in France.” That was followed by a long-winded exposé of his “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” project for France.
On his way back from Algeria, the startup candidate stopped in London where he addressed an enthusiastic crowd of expats. In a shocking feat of erroneous reporting, The Guardian turned Macron’s Algerian bomb into a modest statement that “human rights abuses” were committed during the colonization of Algeria. No, my friends, he said “crime against humanity.” We heard elsewhere that the British government was not pleased by Macron’s invitation-extended in front of 10 Downing Street-to bankers, engineers, scientists, and other desirables fleeing the Brexited UK to settle in France.
February 22: 4-time defeated presidential candidate François Bayrou solemnly declared: “l’heure est grave” [the situation is serious]. The long-winded, pedantic, moralizing politician-professor performed a public act of abnegation-he wouldn’t be running for president-and heroically offered an alliance with Emmanuel Macron. Who immediately accepted. Bayrou maintains his hallmark pose of disinterested superiority: He never seeks fame, fortune, power or prerogatives. His mission is to save the nation from electing someone other than himself or a candidate he has sanctioned. Will he be an addition or a subtraction to Macron’s campaign? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull out before mid-April. But I might be wrong.
We can safely assume that François Fillon has not been accused of corruption at any point in his 36-year political career; if he had been, we would be hearing about it from morning to night. Tragically, Fillon stood straight and tall on his clean reputation in the primary campaign, going so far as to ask, rhetorically, “Could we imagine Général de Gaulle mise en examen (under investigation)? This was an obvious poke at his rival Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been repeatedly mise en examen since François Hollande took office. No matter that all the cases ended in acquittal, mise en examen has come to mean “presumed guilty.” When the scandal, maliciously labeled “Penelopegate,” broke in February, Fillon was so certain of his innocence that he said he would drop out of the race if he were mise en examen.
The opening shot was sensational: “Penelope Fillon earned 500,000 euros for doing nothing.” Zionists are familiar with this type of operation. Nothing that is said or done afterward will erase the initial shock effect. François Fillon’s lawyer, Antonin Levy (the son of the famous philosopher and activist Bernard Henri Levy), says he has filed more than 600 pages of evidence of madame Fillon’s effective assistance to her husband, why should anyone believe him? The story gets the post-modern treatment of verification by repetition.
Fillon’s platform and the relentless effort to keep him from reaching the second round, where he might defeat Le Pen or Macron, will be explored in depth in Part 2.
The outgoing Prime Minister and Interior Minister made a brief statement to the press shortly after the thwarted attack at Orly airport this morning. The assailant, they said, tried to grab the Famas assault rifle from a (female) aviator on patrol. But she held onto it. This was repeated several times. He couldn’t get the gun, but he was a danger to her and the passengers. He was shot dead by a fellow Air Force man in the patrol. A few hours later a photo of the dead assailant was published. The gun is lying across his chest.
RELATED INFOGRAPHIC: 61% of French say Islam is incompatible with their secular society.
How did a burkini ban imposed in more than 30 seaside municipalities become the center of international scorn? France, reeling in the aftermath of allahu akhbar mass murders, suddenly becomes the bad guy? Videos, some of them staged provocations, of innocent Islamically dressed women, victims of “police brutality” on French beaches replace the horrifying reality of the dead and the maimed on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, and hardly anyone notices the paradox?
First of all, it’s not a burkini. The catchy misnomer is good marketing but it does not describe the hijabathing suit that covers a woman from head to toe, leaving only the face, the hands, and the feet exposed. Unless it’s supposed to mean a transition from burqa to bikini? More likely vice versa! As it stands today, it’s nautical miles away from a bikini and the gaggles of ladies performing in front of the French embassy in London and similar locations are paddling in bad faith. “No one can tell me what to wear,” they declaim, echoing sharia -friendly slogans we’ve heard before. Europe is pockmarked with neighborhoods controlled by sharia promoters who most certainly do tell women what to wear. And punish them if they do not comply. In one of countless “honor” murders in France the parents of a young man who burned a woman alive defended him with this straightforward explanation: she wore makeup.
Hala Gorani (CNN International) invited two Muslim women to comment on the French burkini ban. One, dressed in Western clothes, is against the burkini and against the ban. Walking in a neighborhood in Bradford she heard men who did not know she understood their language tearing her apart for showing her face. The other guest, her head and neck enclosed in an opaque winding sheet and the rest of what must be her body hidden inside a thick-skinned jilbab, summed up the French burkini ban as “white men telling brown women what to wear.” The current French government is a stickler for parity but that doesn’t penetrate the young woman’s hijab. From her viewpoint, the president is a white man, the male and female cabinet ministers are a white man, the naughty burkini ban is a white man’s insult to Muslim women.
Islamically correct neighborhoods in our modern Western countries are modelled on Islamic nations in which women are most vehemently told what they can wear. Tourists, businesswomen, wives of heads of state, female politicians, and journalists cover their arms and legs and wrap their heads in scarves more accurately described as hijab when they tread those grounds.
Daughters or granddaughters of bra-burners frolic on a makeshift beach in front of a French embassy, arm in arm with their Muslim sisters whose mothers or grandmothers fled oppressive Islamic lands. Egged on by the usual battalions of reporters in prestigious media, they scold the intolerant French. Nobody can tell you what to wear? Tell me, American and British sisters, can you go topless on your beaches? Can you wear street clothes in the swimming pool? Of course not, and everyone knows. It’s my choice to cover myself? Women who “freely choose” to hide their bodies also accept a wide range of constraints and impositions that may include genital mutilation and purdah. But this ad hoc Sisterhood equates the choice of Islamically hiding one’s body with Women’s Liberation! Contraception, abortion, sexual freedom, the right to be a bus driver, party all night, stay alone in a hotel without being branded a prostitute…and the right to swathe my body in yards of fabric to stifle its improper sexual invitation.
What’s not French about a burkini? asks one sassy progressive. Didn’t Victorian bathing costumes cover women from head to toe?
All the right-thinking commentators, newspapers of reference, international TV networks, and cutesy protestors shook fingers of reprobation at the French, repeating the same storyline, the same clichés, being shocked by the same (probably staged) incident, and not daring to dip a toe into the ocean of evidence that stretches out to the horizon.
The basic premise is: everything Islamic is by definition harmless, benevolent, justified, justifiable, and totally disconnected from that nasty “terrorism” mistakenly connected to the noble religion of Islam and its Muslim populations. There is nothing reprehensible about encouraging or forcing women to hide their bodies, the choices of Muslims are always free and compatible with life in modern democracies, any suggestion to the contrary is a disgraceful stigmatization and, what’s more, feeds the flames of “terrorism.”
It follows that the burkini ban is an act of gratuitous hostility by right wing mayors. The honorable ladies and gentlemen of the Human Rights League (a paragon of anti-Zionism) and the (questionable) Collective against Islamophobia rightfully challenged the shameful ban. Decent people everywhere sighed with relief when the highest administrative court, le Conseil d’Etat, suspended the ban in one commune, Villeneuve-Loubet. Case closed? Not so fast. Most of the mayors are maintaining the ban. The plaintiffs will have to challenge all of them collectively or each one individually. The debate has not ended with the August 26th decision, it has just begun. Lawmakers are preparing bills that will stand up to scrutiny by the Courts. Despite the lack of support from his own administration, Prime Minister Manuel Valls has not backed down. 64% of French people polled in the heat of the controversy support for the ban. By next summer France will have a president from the Républicains party. And Islam will be a decisive issue in the elections.
What’s wrong with France?
Disgusting racists, far right extremists, xenophobes, retrograde repressive stubborn fools that don’t understand where the world is going? Diversity is the marching order. Respect for differences, moving over and making room for refugees and immigrants, appreciating their rich cultural heritage, living side by side in peace and harmony, that’s the way to go. So why don’t a majority of French people want to go there?
Is it because they’re hooked on laïcité? If ostentatious religious symbols are really the issue, the municipal decrees would really target the kippa, the cross, a priest’s collar, a nun’s headdress and, who knows, certain tattoos and esoteric symbols. Religious outfits don’t disturb the peace. I never saw an Orthodox Jewish woman in long sleeves and thick stockings on a French beach, but if she did spread a towel and roast in the sun, would it bother anyone? The problem is not religion it’s Islamic conquest, animated by genocidal hatred. And the Collective against Islamophobia is a bad actor in this drama.
Religiously speaking, the burkini is haram for the sharia compliant. See “the True Salaf” for precisions on how the female should be covered and cloistered. Incidentally, this long-winded repetitive contemporary guide sheds light on the free choice vaunted by covered Muslim women. Abu Hammad al Hayiti explains that it is Allah, not a father or a brother or a husband that prescribes hijab/jilbab. And the young ladies cherished by TV cameras dutifully inform us that no one is forcing them to dress that way. Though the burkini is definitely not sharia compliant its use can be condoned strategically as a step in the right direction. Hence the difficulty faced by French society in formulating sociologically and legally the terms of their resistance.
The burkini ban did not come out of a clear blue sky.
In the past 16 years, France has been the target of incessant and increasing Islamic hostility. First directed against Jews and then gradually extended to law enforcement, medical personnel, firefighters, teachers, institutions, and now undifferentiated civilians targeted in mass murders committed by European-born Muslims. Successive governments have tried awkwardly and ineffectively to protect citizens while bending over backwards at every blow to maintain social cohesion. Counter-productive foreign and domestic policies have, to say the least, contributed to this vulnerability to attack and subversion. The breaking point was reached in January 2015 and exacerbated by the massacres in November of that year, then Nice in July 2016, followed by the slaughter of a priest in a Normandy church, not to mention dozens of other atrocities springing from the same source, and dire warnings of more to come.
The Tunisian (with a French residence permit) who killed 86 and maimed or wounded more than a hundred in Nice on the 14th of July, came from Mkasen, a hotbed of Islamism a short distance from Sousse. The jihadi who gunned down 38 people, mainly British tourists, on a beach in Sousse in July 2015 also came from Mkasen. Daesh promised to perpetrate the same kind of executions on French beaches this summer. Heavily armed policemen and soldiers have been patrolling major beaches. All over France, festivals have been cancelled for security reasons. Tourism has dropped radically.
An event organized in a waterpark outside of Marseille open exclusively to women in burkini and children-girls of any age, boys up to the age of ten-blithely disregarding laws against discriminatory separation of men and women, was ultimately cancelled. It would take an entire volume to list all the occasions when this kind of disrespect for French law was tolerated. This time, with nerves still raw from the shock of Nice, the affront was too great.
On August 13th, the court validated a burkini ban imposed by the mayor of Cannes on July 28th. This kind of decree formulated by a local authority responsible for law and order is not a sophisticated text intended to stand for eternity. That same day, three Maghrebi brothers from Bastia (Corsica) decided to privatize a little beach in Sisco so the women could swim in full Islamic dress. They are accused of chasing other beachgoers away with physical and verbal abuse. Two Sisco men stood their ground. It ended with a huge fight, cars were burned, a man from Sisco was stabbed with a harpoon, it took several hours and 100 policemen to restore order.
Opinion makers and decision makers know about this. But most prefer to disconnect. They disconnect the Islamoswimsuit from the Salafists that prey on the Muslim community, strong arm imams, push their way into mosques, occupy territory, and exert relentless pressure for compliance. They disconnect the hijabathing suit from those nice Muslim men that no one would have suspected who turn out to be jihad mass murderers. They disconnect the escalation of Islamic dress that covers more and more Muslim women, by stages, from loose unrevealing clothes, to hijab, plus jilbab, and all the way to the niqab. And even though the niqab is banned in France, some defiant women continue to wear it, and small riots break out if the police intervene. Opinion makers disconnect the credible threats of beach massacres, the riot at Sisco, isolated assaults at other beaches and vacation spots this summer. They wrap the whole story in the image of a smiling attractive Muslim in a bright blue hijabathing suit, just doing her thing.
Inoffensive. That’s what the tolerant Western mind thinks. Everyone should be free to do as he pleases as long as it doesn’t harm the other. But that is not the meaning of hijab for those who impose it on Muslim women. A woman in hijab is “closed” and women with bared heads are consequentially “open,” the face & hair are the sex, and a bared “sex” is an invitation to penetration. Inoffensive? What of the countless “honor” killings? Women savagely murdered by family members because they were Westernized. Education Minister Najat Vallaud Belkacem, in frontal opposition to the prime minister, decried the burkini ban that “stigmatizes Muslims and fans the flames of racism.” The minister has just presided over a program of mass murder & hostage drills in public schools because she knows, the government knows, people with sharp intuition know Daesh is planning to attack French schools. In full atrocity mode.
International public opinion, enflamed by what is perhaps a well-orchestrated campaign to portray France as shamefully Islamophobic, has practically ignored the Allahu Akhbar murder of a beautiful Eurasian from the UK by a French national named Smail Ayad. Mia Ayliffe Chung, Ayad, and two other men shared a small room with four bunk beds in a backpacker’s hostel in Queensland (Australia). The killer, who was reportedly infatuated with her, flew into a rage because she rejected his advances and took part in a glamour photo shoot. Backpackers at the hostel say he had been threatening for two weeks to massacre all of them. They thought it was a joke.
Another disconnect. And a tragic joke.
EDITORS NOTE: Ms. Poller is the author of “The Black Flag of Jihad Stalks the Republique”
The 14 juillet National Holiday fireworks were over, the horror began in Nice. A 19-ton semi-trailer truck went around the barrier and barreled down the famous beachfront Promenade des Anglais. The monster truck drove 2 kilometers, zigzagging to make direct hits, deliberately picking off babies in their strollers, before the driver was stopped in a shootout with police. At this writing the toll stands at 84 dead; 50, including 10 children, with life threatening injuries; and 150, including 54 children, less seriously injured. The mass murderer has been identified as a 31 year-old Tunisian, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, living in Nice on a residence permit, recently licensed to drive big trucks, father of three, separated from his wife since 2014. Bouhlel’s criminal record, including assault and battery, theft, and domestic violence, dates back to 2010, one year after he was granted a 10-year residence permit. He is under a restraining order obtained by his wife who has sued for divorce. He is described by several of his neighbors as a mean loner, with the exception of one who found him to be a nice guy, not at all religious, didn’t say his prayers, liked to dance the salsa and go out with the chicks.
On March 24th, Bouhlel was given a six-month suspended sentence for assaulting a motorist who had asked him to move his truck that was blocking traffic. The victim, Jean-Baptiste Ximenes, posted on Facebook his indignation that the man who had violently beaten him with a baseball bat, was left free…to commit mass murder.
An irascible young Tunisian armed with a 19-ton truck killed more than 80 civilians and the toll is expected to rise. In the truck he rented on July 11th –and was supposed to return on the 13th— Bouhlel was carrying two fake machine guns, a pierced grenade, a fake handgun and a real one that he used in the final shootout with the police. The death toll of the November 13th jihad attacks at the Bataclan, sidewalk cafés, and stadium in Paris is 130. That operation, masterminded from Syria, involved dozens of fighters trained in the caliphate or handling logistics in Europe. They traveled by complicated routes, some joined the “refugees” in Greece and snaked up to Belgium with them, probably recruiting a few shahids in the lot. They had safe houses, false passports, money, weapons, ammunition, explosive vests … Vastly disproportionate weapons and planning, give ghastly similar results Eighty-four dead, fifty maimed for life, the blue waters of the Côte d’Azur trembling with horror and outrage; 130 dead, countless maimed and marked for life, Parisian joie de vivre stunned….
But all of that may be nothing compared to what is coming next. Only the other day Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve warned that the “terrorists” might switch from “suicide” attacks to other methods like truck bombs and IEDS. The root motivation that inspires these mass killings passes through myriad disparate channels and achieves significant results. The focus on anecdotal details obscures that single source and delays our understanding of the war waged on the free world. It must be granted that the Hollande government, ineffectual as it may be, did not call for stricter control of semi-trailer truck rentals in the wake of the Nice attack. The investigation was handed over to Paris Prosecutor François Molins, and classified as a terrorist attack committed in collusion with a terrorist organization. In his first public declaration Molins explained: whether or not Bouhlel was in direct contact with Daesh, his heinous act responds to instructions given by the organization. Subsequently PM Manuel Valls maintained that Bouhlel was in fact connected to a radical Islamic movement.
Mournful ceremonials of sincere flowers & candles and solidarity light-shows in the colors of the afflicted nation after each mass killing give the illusion of exceptional incidents that can somehow be contained in a time frame, with a beginning a middle and an end. They are not appropriate to the reality of all-out war with no borders, no outlined battlefields, no predictable indicators except that the perpetrators will be Muslim, native born or converts. The most graphic illustration of this ceremonial confusion is the current state of la Place de la République in Paris. The national focal point of dignified grieving has been turned into a pigpen. Flowers, candles, and peace & love messages on the pedestal of the Marianne statue, symbol of the République, have been replaced by disgraceful graffiti left by the false hopes Nuit Debout movement. [http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/up-all-nightmare]
Unless and until democratic citizens have a comprehensive picture of jihad conquest they cannot be mobilized to defend their freedom and their lives. However dramatic, these mass killings have to be understood in their totality and accurately. We need determined leadership that will show the way to mobilization, not closure.
In a climate of national unity after the November attacks, President Hollande solemnly promised to take vigorous measures to protect the population from terrorism. Prime Minister Valls named it Radical Islam. Among these measures was the controversial proposal to strip the citizenship of dual nationals involved in supporting, planning or perpetrating these attacks. Under pressure from his Socialist majority President Hollande abandoned most of the promises. The other day, in his July 14th message to the nation, the president announced that the state of emergency declared in the wake of the attacks and repeatedly extended for three-month periods would not be renewed when it expires on July 26th. As if the very real danger hanging over French civilians could be dissipated by a governmental decision. He reversed this decision on the 15th.
And that’s the least of the miscalculations. Since March 31st and despite its own state of emergency declaration, the government has allowed countless protest demonstrations against a labor reform law, even though every single march ended up with vicious attacks against the police. Hundreds of policemen were injured, some seriously. And all were humiliated. At least half a million euros worth of damage to public and private property was committed. On May 18th a policeman and woman narrowly escaped death when their patrol car was smashed and torched. The policeman was beaten as he fled the flames. On June 15th, seven two-story plate glass windows of the Necker Children’s Hospital were smashed, teargas seeped into the building, health care personnel were unable to reach the hospital, and young patients were terrified. The Nuit Debout movement occupied la Place de la République for months, damaging property, generating attacks on the police, preaching anarchy and sedition. The mass occupation of the public square made a mockery of the state of emergency, which was high on the movement’s list of sins against the people. “Down with the state of emergency, down with the state!” By allowing the Nuit Deboutniks to congregate, agitate, firebomb the police and deface the monument of the Republic the government displayed its lack of resolve. PM Valls had said we are at war. The atmosphere was bread and circuses.
Let the children play. Let the protestors march and holler. Let the smashers destroy. Unpleasant to be sure, but the very nastiness of that familiar violence was a way of saying we have things in hand. These are normal problems that can’t really be solved, they just fade away. The labor reform bill was watered down and pushed through (the government engaged its responsibility instead of letting the Parliament debate and vote). Strong measures were taken to protect the Euro 2016 soccer championship that went off almost without a hitch. Then came the fireworks!
Lagging behind reality
Just a short time ago there was debate on what should be done with the thousands of “S-flagged” individuals marked as terror suspects and vaguely watched over until they slip under the radar and emerge with Kalashnikovs or turn to other occupations. Shouldn’t they be more closely followed, fitted with electronic bracelets, or even held in retention centers? What of jihadis sentenced to prison? Are they properly isolated from other prisoners? The top dog in this department, Salah Abdeslam, responsible for the logistics of the November 13 attacks, is held in solitary confinement with 24-hour video surveillance. He actually sued the government for violation of his privacy. His complaint was rejected. Meanwhile it was revealed that he has a three-cell complex, including a well-equipped workout room. This is justified by European human rights rules. Abdeslam has never given the slightest shred of information to investigators. Occasionally he promises he will talk, then backs down. He isn’t feeling good, doesn’t feel like talking, won’t talk until his detention conditions improve. He is defended by a court-appointed lawyer at public expense.
Then there are the futile de-radicalization programs. All part of a massive denial of reality. As if the genocidal Islamic rage that inspires lesser and greater mass murderers were some kind of misunderstanding that could be cleared up by heart to heart talking. Another example of focusing on things that can’t be done-like persuading jihadis to turn to basket weaving or making it impossible for 19-ton trucks to smash through barriers or Kalashnikov-armed killers to mow down under-armed security guards-instead of finally putting our countries on the appropriate war (that is, jihad conquest) footing.
Georges Fenech, president of the bipartisan Parliamentary Commission that published its investigation of the November 13th attacks last week, regrets the lack of interest from the Hollande administration in the Commission’s concrete recommendations. “Our country is not armed against Islamic terrorism.” One of the findings of the extensive report is that police forces preparing to intervene to stop the massacre at the Bataclan only had handguns. They begged the soldiers to either come with them or lend them their Famas assault weapons. The soldiers could do neither. They didn’t have orders. According to an official of the SCPN [Police Commissioners’ Union] the forces that finally stopped the killer truck in Nice did not have proper weapons. They fired repeatedly into the windshield but Bouhlel was able to continue 300 meters before they finally neutralized him. Christian Estrosi, former mayor of Nice and currently president of the PACA [Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur] region had alerted President Hollande, on July 13th, to the lack of proper protection for the July 14th fireworks display in Nice. The central government alone can mobilize national police forces, better armed and trained than the municipal agents.
Nice, for all its nostalgic elegance and beautiful beaches, is a jihad hotspot. An attack against the Carnival of Nice was foiled a few months ago. An assailant stabbed three soldiers guarding a Jewish Community Center in Nice. One of the most vicious jihadi cells discovered in recent years, the “Torcy cell” based in Nice, was involved in the 2012 grenade attack against the Naouri kosher grocery store in Sarcelles, subsequently torched and burned to the ground in the summer of 2014.
Israel as a model
Though the Israeli connection may be brushed off as too hot to handle, Israel is more frequently and frankly mentioned in French debates as a model for dealing with the full range of jihad attacks: citizens are armed and have combat experience, intelligence services are exceptionally efficient, the society has learned to live fully and remain fully conscious of the danger. Olivier Rafowicz, IDF Reserves colonel, says he recently accompanied an Israeli delegation to Nice for security consultations. Private Israeli security agencies are quietly hired by French private and public companies.
The West will improve its defenses when Israel is recognized as the rampart in our defense against jihad conquest, standing for our values in the middle of a vast expanse of genocidal hatred. Israel has always lived in awareness of its perilous surroundings. Now the rest of the free world is in the same neighborhood. I remember the snide voices of French commentators in the early years of the jihad-intifada, spitting on “Israel’s sacrosanct concern for security.” This constant demonization of Israel is a rot that jams our weapons, weakens our military, and destabilizes our societies in Europe and, yes, even in the United States.
Daesh like a wireless mouse
It was reasonable to suppose that the French prime minister would not have forthrightly claimed a direct connection between Mohamed Bouhlel and a terrorist organization if he did not have evidence drawn from electronic devices seized after the Nice massacre. Did Bouhlel, like the Orlando killer, declare his allegiance to the caliphate just before going on the rampage? Saturday morning Daesh took responsibility for the brave operation conducted by its soldier in Nice. Some French media are reporting that this is a codified designation that follows strict rules and necessarily implies a pledge of allegiance. Several of the five people detained for questioning confirm Bouhlel’s “recent radicalization.” We will learn more in the coming days or weeks about the nature of that connection. Even if there is not a single incriminating document, conversation, or contact, it is essential to understand that Daesh operates like a wireless mouse: the message goes out from the higher echelons via communicators into the evil hearts of the masses of potential genocidal killers.
A telling personal experience
Saturday afternoon, after spending hours collecting information on the Nice attack from every available source, I took a walk to the post office, stopping on the way at a tobacconist’s shop to buy a book of métro tickets. I’ve been there at least five times in the past six months. Exchanges with the “buraliste” (proprietor or employee, one can’t be sure which) have always been cordial. I was reaching for my money, when the gentleman announced the price: 14.10 euros. “14.10,” I exclaimed! Had the price gone up again, or did I forget what I paid the last time?
“Don’t you ever take the métro?” he scolded. And got nastier as he went along, accusing me of accusing him of being a thief, telling me to go and buy my tickets at the métro station and never come to his shop again. I truly think that he could have reached out to slap me if I hadn’t been so calm and sunny.
“If I accused anyone it was the RATP [transport company] but that’s ok, I won’t come back anymore.” I said “au revoir,” revised it to “adieu,” and walked out.
I mention this because of the visible origins of the “buraliste.” Apparently feeling unjustly suspected, for his however distant shared origins with the truck-killer, he found nothing better to do than to lash out at me!
A terrific and important piece. If only it were heeded. But the political and media elites are immovable, and will keep repeating their empty gestures after every new jihad attack. Immovable of themselves — they will have to be moved by free people: replaced by saner, stronger people who are willing to defend free nations.
“No More: After Nice, let’s stop the nonsense,” by Bruce Bawer, City Journal, July 16, 2016:
No more flags of foreign countries posted on Facebook in a spirit of solidarity. No more empathic Twitter hashtags. No more empty statements by heads of government declaring that “the terrorists have failed in their effort to turn us against one another.” No more equally empty statements by other heads of government expressing their own country’s support for “our ally in its time of grief.” No more calls for love in the face of hate, or candlelight processions as a response to murder. No more clicking of tongues and shaking of heads over the horrible loss of life—as if people had died in a one-off natural disaster, a hurricane or tornado or tsunami—followed, after a few days, by a return to normal. Until the next time, of course.
No more attempts to psychologically analyze every new jihadist—to probe his troubled family or professional life in an attempt to figure out what “turned him to violence and extremism.” No more reflexive reassurances that “this has nothing to do with Islam,” that a handful of bad guys have “hijacked” a “peaceful” faith, and that “the great majority of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims are, of course, peace-loving people who utterly reject this kind of action.” No more slick pivoting to the subject of gun control, or American homophobia, or whatever other diversion seems useful under the specific circumstances. No more blaming of Europeans’ supposed failure to accept or embrace or integrate or employ Muslims, or of Muslims’ alleged poverty or hopelessness or frustration or alienation.
No more hand-wringing by journalists, as they stand mere yards from the bodies of the dead, about the possible “backlash” against Muslims (which never really materializes). No more declarations by U.S. officials that the mere mention of Islam in connection with Islamic terrorism is “dangerous” and “counterproductive” because it “alienates” the Muslim allies and Muslim communities whose help we need in fighting this problem that we dare not properly name. No more respectful TV interviews with representatives of “Muslim civil-rights organizations” that have been proven over and over again to be fronts for terrorism.
No more outrageous lies by government and media that, almost fifteen years after 9/11, keep so many Americans so outrageously in the dark about the world in which we live now. No more of the despicable day-to-day efforts by the same actors to keep those Americans who do get it in line, to instill in them an unholy fear that, if they dare to address the problem honestly, they’ll be thrust forever out into the dark—beyond the realm of decent society, unacceptable, unemployable, unfriendable. No more societal tyranny by those who (because they’re cowardly, or feel powerless, or have no sense of responsibility to preserve the precious gift of freedom that their own forebears fought and died for and have bequeathed them, or are, inconceivably, unconcerned about the world their own children and grandchildren will inhabit) treat as enemies not those who seek to destroy them but those who dare to speak the truth about it….
In the years after 9/11, major acts of Islamic terrorism in the West seemed to come along every year or so, leaving plenty of time in between to go back to pretending that everything was fine and to resume mouthing benign platitudes. Now they’re happening so often, one right on top of the other, that we can hardly keep track of them. The only upside is that it’s getting harder and harder to maintain that pretense….